"Darlington Nurses" vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust Tribunal Thread 7

[ThreeWordHarpy]

Thread 1, 7-Oct to 23-Oct; pre-hearing discussion, KD (day 1 of evidence) and BH (day 2).
Thread 2, 23-Oct to 28-Oct; BH (day 2), CH, JP, MG (day 3&4), TH, SS, ST, LL (day 4), JS, AT (day 5)
Thread 3, 28-Oct to 29-Oct; AT (day 5&6), TA (day 6&7)
Thread 4, 29-Oct to 31-Oct; TA, AM (day 7) JB (day 8)
Thread 5, 31-Oct to 04-Nov; JB (day 8), SW, CG, JR (day 9)
Thread 6, 04-Nov to 05-Nov; RH (day 10), SW (day 11)

Five nurses working at Darlington Memorial Hospital have filed a legal case suing their employer, an NHS trust, for sexual harassment and sex discrimination. The nurses object to sharing the women’s changing facilities with a male colleague, Rose, who identifies as female. The hearing started on October 20th, with evidence starting on October 22nd and is scheduled to last 3 weeks. To view the hearing online requests for access had to be made by October 17th. The hearing is being live tweeted by Tribunal Tweets who have background to this case on their substack. An alternative to X is to use Nitter: nitter.net/tribunaltweets or nitter.poast.org/tribunaltweets

The Judge made clear at the start of the public hearing on Day 1 that only TT or press have permission to tweet. If online observers see/hear something in the court that isn’t reported by TT, we don’t mention it until the next time there’s a break. This is a very cautious approach to avoid any accusations of “live reporting” on MN. Commentary on the content of TT tweets is fine as soon as they’re posted on X.

Key people:
C/Ns - Claimants, the Darlington nurses
R/T/Trust - Respondent, County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust
J/EJ – Judge/Employment Judge Seamus Sweeney
NF - Niazi Fetto KC, barrister for claimants
SC - Simon Cheetham, KC, barrister for respondents
RH - Rose Henderson, trans identifying nurse
CG – Clare Gregory, NHS ward manager
SW - Sue Williams, NHS Trust HR
KD – Karen Danson, first claimant to give evidence.
BH – Bethany Hutchison, claimant
AH – Alistair Hutchison, husband of Bethany
CH – Carly Hoy, claimant
JP – Jane Peveller, claimant
MG – Mary Anne (aka Annice) Grundy, claimant
TH – Tracy Hooper, claimant
SS – Siobhan Sinclair, witness for the claimants, retired from Trust
ST – Sharron Trevarrow, witness for the claimants, retired from Trust, former housekeeper and wellbeing officer
LL – Lisa Lockey, claimant
JP – Professor Jo Phoenix, expert witness
JS – Jane Shields, witness for the claimants
AT - Andrew Thacker, NHS trust Head of HR
TA – Tracy Atkinson, NHS trust HR.
AM – Andrew Moore, NHS Head of Workforce Experience
JB – Jillian Bailey, NHS Workforce Experience Manager
AT – Anna Telfer, NHS Deputy Director of Nursing
SW – Sandra Watson, Matron for General and Elective Surgery
JR – Jodie Robinson, manager of Rose

TT

JP - they should not be confused
J - para 18b, you refer to it is a 'widely accepted empirical observation' widely accept by whom?
JP - widely accepted by social scientists, it may help...
J - that's okay, just wanted to know that
J - a ref to research, you refer to research

I realise these questions need to be asked but really??? Do women feel uncomfortable getting undressed in front of male work colleagues. Yeh! We love it! It’s great knowing that the man you are going to have to work with may have seen you half naked or even naked 10 minutes earlier!

I'm still WFTCHTJ after rejoining multiple times. Maybe the host is too enthralled.

TT

that discusses women's bodies as objects..... can you explain that
JP - I'm trying to figure out where to start.
J - one of the skills of an expert, to simplify for the non-expert
JP - the origins of sociologists and psychology, women's body are different, women bleed, give birth. We are individuals that come together in groups to live differently. One of the challenges for women to deal with in terms of equality is that our bodies betray us as being closer to nature. Why is that men had status in hunter gathered societies? Meat was relatively

I think this would be a brilliant example to illustrate exactly what JP has been saying in her report. A bloke isn’t bothered about holey boxers but a high number of women would be mortified

I keep forgetting this is happening in real time as I am on tenterhooks - Jo Phoenix is such a brilliant speaker. I keep hitting refresh on my browser.

J - one of the skills of an expert, to simplify for the non-expert

I hope that was said with a hint of a smile...

I wonder if that question wasn’t purely to clarify for legal purposes. The judge, like many otherwise intelligent and well informed people, may genuinely not have properly understood the term and its implications.
But once you do understand, it all falls into place.

TT

rare, harder to get, men are prized because of that. The theory of the abject,
J - what is that
JP - culture is symbolic, we use words, we must reject nature and natural impulses.
J - I understand the answer....that's for sure
JP -good

Very glitchy connection for me, keeps cutting out.

Thank god Jo’s in the room to get this on record.

I suspect they were there not to support the witnesses but to make sure they could report back to the Trust about any wrong speak.

All this to explain that women don't like men watching them undress. Unreal.

Getting JP to define what 'gender critical' means was v useful, for this trib and more broadly.
edited to add her v succinct and useful definition
J - may sound like a silly q, what do you mean by gender critical
JP - sex is immutable, people cannot change sex, it is important to recognise on occasion that sex matters more, sex has an ongoing and enduring social significance

And facecrime.

TT

J - empirical research across a range of disciplines is that what you used
JP - yes, there is not a great deal of research that deals with CRs because it's a new social norm we're dealing with
J - you say that the qs posed are sociological qs,

Interesting to note that sometimes to calories (and time) expended to actually obtain the meat, makes it not as profitable from a calorie point of view as the gathering of berries etc...

harking back to my own anthropological days.

I have had so many wtaf moments watching these tribunals but this is utterly surreal.

We are at a point where we are required to have specific academic evidence to even be allowed to mention that single sex spaces are a thing.

The atmosphere is great in there!

TT

[JP watch chimes, she apologises, J says 'we've all been there]
J - there is no body or research that directly addresses but there is research from which we can draw inferences, and the answer is yes
JP - yes
J - you then set out that research and studies in this report

I would love to read her witness statement. Maybe she will publish it herself.

It has the makings of a great dinner party.

Unless it’s in a witness statement there’s a limit to what can be used in closing arguments. NF wants to say “women are subject to a detriment being made to change in front of men” which is a statement of fact. So he needs an expert witness to swear to its truth.

Otherwise SC can simply say that fact was not in evidence.

It’s not quite obvious and undisputed enough to be something the court would 100% no-questions take “Judicial notice” of, like the date of Christmas or the names of the wives of Henry VIII.

this way the judge can simply accept the evidence and it’s not open to appeal.

Where is the empirical peer reviewed evidence that a) women do mind about having to get their tits out for the lads

and that b) it matters that they mind.

I am at the point of just shouting FUCK OFF at the whole lot of this.

TT

J- you give your opinion in para 22,
[JP watch goes off again, J offering guidance on how to turn it off, JP takes watch off, trying to fix, suggestions to hand to lawyer - watch is handed off]
J - your conclusion based on 2 established and connected facts does that boil down to